Talk:Naratriptan

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Naratriptan.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Article tone

This article seriously reads like an ad for the drug. Are there standards for articles about drugs? Murderbike 02:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tone is certainly inappropriate; it is likely a copy/paste from a patient information leaflet. A rewrite is in order, and I'll check for a copyright violation—deletion and recreation may be necessary. Thanks for pointing this out. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was indeed a copy/paste from the Mayo Clinic website, which uses copyrighted Micromedex content. I've deleted the article and restored the "clean" versions; it would be nice to reintroduce any useful information which was lost. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright concern

I saw the content of the article is identical verbatim from [1]. I found it from [2] earwig search result. I cannot tell which site is copying from which, and there is no web archive link, but earwig also flags a second article for copyvio concerns, [3]. Darcyisverycute (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Darcyisverycute: I believe it's a backwards copy. We've had the majority of the text since ~2008/2009, while that domain wasn't registered until 2019 and the page source contains "datePublished":"2020-10-07T09:15:13+00:00" ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it. I'll try to remember checking the source code for fields like that in future, I didn't think of that. Darcyisverycute (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just remember that the source code isn't always accurate, so it's best to look at other things (archives, etc.) as well. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]